Thread by @leonardpierce

Today at @DSAcon2019, there was vigorous debate over Resolution #9 to establish a national antifascist working group. Dissent and debate is always good, but this is an issue of great importance to me, so I tried to do something I rarely do: publicly argue against the resolution.

I ended up not speaking, as I'm a white cis male and we were keeping progressive stack. I was more than happy to yield my time to other comrades' voices. But my history around antifascist action means a lot to me, so I wanted to post for anyone who cares what I would have said.

"I have engaged in antifascist action in a wide variety of forms for the past 30+ years. I have spent time in jail behind this activity. I have been beaten, stabbed, attacked, and harassed by both fascist street thugs and their enablers in law enforcement."

"My commitment to antifascism is broad and deep, and will be lifelong. That is why I believe that Resolution #9 is the wrong approach at the wrong time. While we must repudiate absolutely the false equivalency that fascists and antifascists are two sides of the same coin..."

"...there is one thing they have in common: much of the work they do is done in darkness. Some of the most vital actions taken by antifascists are literally crimes; it is nearly impossible to even discuss them publicly for fear of putting a group of people at risk of arrest."

"DSA is an official organization -- one whose very existence could be erased in a second if we were seen to be endorsing criminal activities. And with both party's lawmakers hinting they might seek to categorize antifa as terrorist organization, this risk is greater than ever."

"Until we reach the stage of open violent suppression of groups like ours, we must calculate our risks. While it is true law enforcement might come after us anyway, the burden of proof is still on them to establish that we are connected to something criminal."

"So why remove our plausible deniability? Why make a prosecutor's job easier? Why place the burden of proof on ourselves to deny that we're terrorists? Why do something that places us in the crosshairs for something antifa groups haven't asked us to do and don't want us to?"

"While socialism is necessarily and definitionally antifascist, and can and should better use its public profile to inform people about and agitate against fascism, much of the vital work of combatting this plague must be done quietly, secretly, and anonymously."

"Having a public working group involved in this work places our members at greater risk of attack from fascist goons and provides an easy pretext for infiltrating us, investigating us, and shutting us down. It would place a target on us, individually and organizationally."

"Antifa operates behind a mask for a reason. Recognize that reason and seek a better solution than Resolution #9 to make DSA a crucial part of the fight against fascism."

Resolution #9 passed, by a slim margin, and that's fine. I think it's a mistake, and one that will cost us, but it was a political debate that my side lot, and I was willing to let it go without further comment. I thought I was done talking about it.

So what changed?

What changed is that the pro-9 forces were not graceful in victory. While I wouldn't dream of saying someone was soft on fascism just because they backed an amendment I supported, the same courtesy wasn't extended to me, and before the vote was even over, the myth was forming.

A not-so-quiet campaign began, both in the hall and on the Internet, claiming that anti-9 voters like myself were, you guessed it, soft on fascism. Why vote against a resolution against fascism unless you love fascism? It's the most hostile possible reading, but here we are.

Of course, this is nothing new. I've been called soft on fascism by comrades in my own chapter for opposing similarly flawed proposals. But the speed at which the 'anti-9 voters are objectively pro-fascist' story spread was alarming and, frankly, shocking and awful.

We are seeing a legend crafted before our eyes: a great betrayal, a stab in the back, a lost cause -- made more remarkable since its crafters are the victors. Of course, just as they know we aren't really pro-fascist, they also know these legends always lead down ugly roads.

Always pay attention when phrases are in dispute. Always listen carefully when someone is shaping a narrative where they are the only heroes, while everyone else is a traitor, a turncoat, a wolf in cop's jacket. Always ask who benefits and why.

I got my face split open by a cop before some of the people spreading this lie were born. I've had a knife stuck in my arm and my whole ass stuck in jail from fighting Nazis. Anyone who wants to question my antifascist bonafides is welcome to do so to my face, outside the hotel.

But this isn't about me. It's about everyone else. It's about anyone who thinks they'll never be on the wrong side of these issues. It's about the people who think there's no harm in letting this kind of radically uncomradely behavior play itself out.

Ask anyone who's been called a fascist sympathizer for opposing a bad antifascist plan, or who's been called a cop for opposing a bad anti-cop resolution, or who's been accused of hating the disabled for opposing a bad proposal involving disabled comrades.

Ask anyone who's been called a landlord for opposing a bad rent control measure. They know what we'll all find out someday: that there's a trick where you use certain language like a magic spell, to make opposing ideas about something the same as opposing that thing itself.

If they did it to other people, they'll do it to you, the first time you step out of line.

It's very easy to do this the right way. We talk about it all the time. Some of the foundational principles of feminist process -- which too few people in DSA seem to know about, let alone practice -- are "be comradely" and "assume good faith".

Comradely is arguing a proposal on its merits and being gracious in both victory and defeat. Winning a vote and then calling your defeated opposition pro-fascist is the opposite of comradely.

Good faith is believing your comrades when they say they oppose a resolution about antifascism. Telling everyone that in fact they actually oppose antifascism is the definition of bad faith.